They want to draft military... POOOO!!! Not playing a game like this EVER!!
Underrated and Overhated
Shitty, generic military propaganda. Not worth your time.
unironically the first multiplayer fps i ever touched. this shit was like bf3 on an ice cube and dryer lint. 1 star for being an og
Americans, am I right?
I hate this game. Maybe the hate is a little unwarranted, but its just so forgettable. In fact I beat the campaign last night and I can barely remember it. Now I am not an FPS snob by any means. I love a crappy FPS. Shell-shocked 2, Soldier of fortune, Rogue warrior, hell even Turning point had an interesting concept. But this, this is just bland. Jump through a 10 level romp around very similarly rocky locations, fighting the same group of enemies with basically the same weapons. It handles fine. The graphics are fine. The story is fine. There's just something about it that seems so unnecessary. I mean this was the era of Call of Duty and Battlefield Bad Company, and you can see this game borrows heavily from them. Heavy scripted shooting sections in modern times with some gruff real american heroes by your side. You can forgive Danger Close Games for trying to tap into this popularity. And there is the Tier 1 mode which adds a bit of challenge and replay ability to the game. I just really can't recommend this, even to hardcore FPS fans.
Look I'd love to just write "we have Modern Warfare at home" and end it there, but no, Medal of Honor 2010 is waayyy worse.
Good things first: The score is actually great and I wish it was part of a better game. Same applies to the Linkin Park song used during the credits (what's up with Linkin Park being everywhere during the late 00s?). There's a single mission I enjoyed, and I guess the gunplay is occasionally serviceable, at least when it's not ruined by the weird mouse input.
Everything else is just varying degrees of awful. Unlike the long dead multi-player part, the campaign runs on Unreal Engine 3 and looks exactly like you'd expect a generic military fps in this engine to look: incredibly ugly, almost as ugly as the ui. The game's story is similarly generic and an incoherent mess filled with stereotypical characters.
As if all of that wasn't bad enough, the game is also very buggy. I'm not talking about the occasional animation bug or flickering texture, no, this game will force you to replay entire mission! Occasionally, your teammates will get stuck on level props and not move any further. Doesn't sound that bad when you consider how stupid their ai is, but once you reach the next scripted event, the game will not proceed since one of the NPCs needed to trigger the script is missing - you're stuck.
In a case like that, even loading a checkpoint won't work, since a lot of the time the NPC got stuck before the checkpoint save was created and will still be stuck upon reloading, somewhere in a now inaccessible part of the level. Just imagine having to constantly keep track of all the soldiers running around in Call of Duty, or Elizabeth in Bioshock, just in case they get stuck... I had to replay not one, but TWO missions because of this bug! Including the final fucking mission of the game in its entirety, since the script that didn't trigger was what was keeping me from the final cinematic and the end of the game!
It gets worse: the game's story has aged incredibly awful. This is a game that portrays the fucking War in Afghanistan as a noble cause fought by heroic US troops that they'd surely win, if it wasn't for those evil bureaucrats in Washington. The game has the audacity to make you conquer Bagram airbase during a mission, a place that would later be used as a prison, with the Red Cross reporting multiple human rights violations, including inmates being tortured. The devs couldn't have known how the overall situation in Afghanistan would ultimately develop, but the Bagram prison torture had already been reported on for years when the game came out in 2010. Reactions at the time of release were more focused on the fact that the multi-player let players play AS THE FUCKING TALIBAN, which I still cannot believe is something that made it into a commercially released game.
This game is a buggy, incoherent mess, dragged down even further by its absolutely tone deaf political messaging. Unless you want to see how bad it is for yourself, or you're looking into it for research purposes, I genuinely don't see a reason for anyone to play this.
Good things first: The score is actually great and I wish it was part of a better game. Same applies to the Linkin Park song used during the credits (what's up with Linkin Park being everywhere during the late 00s?). There's a single mission I enjoyed, and I guess the gunplay is occasionally serviceable, at least when it's not ruined by the weird mouse input.
Everything else is just varying degrees of awful. Unlike the long dead multi-player part, the campaign runs on Unreal Engine 3 and looks exactly like you'd expect a generic military fps in this engine to look: incredibly ugly, almost as ugly as the ui. The game's story is similarly generic and an incoherent mess filled with stereotypical characters.
As if all of that wasn't bad enough, the game is also very buggy. I'm not talking about the occasional animation bug or flickering texture, no, this game will force you to replay entire mission! Occasionally, your teammates will get stuck on level props and not move any further. Doesn't sound that bad when you consider how stupid their ai is, but once you reach the next scripted event, the game will not proceed since one of the NPCs needed to trigger the script is missing - you're stuck.
In a case like that, even loading a checkpoint won't work, since a lot of the time the NPC got stuck before the checkpoint save was created and will still be stuck upon reloading, somewhere in a now inaccessible part of the level. Just imagine having to constantly keep track of all the soldiers running around in Call of Duty, or Elizabeth in Bioshock, just in case they get stuck... I had to replay not one, but TWO missions because of this bug! Including the final fucking mission of the game in its entirety, since the script that didn't trigger was what was keeping me from the final cinematic and the end of the game!
It gets worse: the game's story has aged incredibly awful. This is a game that portrays the fucking War in Afghanistan as a noble cause fought by heroic US troops that they'd surely win, if it wasn't for those evil bureaucrats in Washington. The game has the audacity to make you conquer Bagram airbase during a mission, a place that would later be used as a prison, with the Red Cross reporting multiple human rights violations, including inmates being tortured. The devs couldn't have known how the overall situation in Afghanistan would ultimately develop, but the Bagram prison torture had already been reported on for years when the game came out in 2010. Reactions at the time of release were more focused on the fact that the multi-player let players play AS THE FUCKING TALIBAN, which I still cannot believe is something that made it into a commercially released game.
This game is a buggy, incoherent mess, dragged down even further by its absolutely tone deaf political messaging. Unless you want to see how bad it is for yourself, or you're looking into it for research purposes, I genuinely don't see a reason for anyone to play this.
A very short campaign, but I enjoyed it. They went for a more realistic portrayal of modern combat in this one, and I think they succeeded. Calling in airstrikes was fun and I liked the authentic military chatter throughout, even if I didn't understand it all. The highlight was the helicopter mission though, I love AH-64 Apaches and the mission that let you be the gunner in one was a blast.
american game
Not as great as I remember, but still a solid game with a relatively short story. Respect drips off this game and that's what makes it stand out. I miss this franchise.
A very short campaign where I could never figure out quite what was happening. Some decent, if uninspired, gameplay. You can definitely feel EA chasing Modern Warfare's fame here. However, it ends up being just okay. I guess the good thing for PS3 owners is that we got Frontline with this, too.
I will say that the mission that has you and your squad trapped in a quickly disintegrating house was fantastic. Really amped up the tension and made the battle very dynamic.
I will say that the mission that has you and your squad trapped in a quickly disintegrating house was fantastic. Really amped up the tension and made the battle very dynamic.
Serviceable one and done shooter. Don't really recall any specifics, but I enjoyed it for the money I paid for it (it was free).
its i mean you can tell its bland and incompetent clone of call of duty, but that you might not know it that it stars four identical beaded epic bacon black rifle coffee compony dudes, one of which voices his vehement distaste for hip hop music in the second spoken line after the prerendered opening.
Eh, it was alright. Campaign was pretty fun.
The final nail in the coffin for Medal of Honor.
The best game in the series, and one of the best military shooters ever.
Danger Close (formerly EA Los Angeles) started off with some of the worst takes on the franchise, but improved with each entry, until they finally put out a good game. The Medal of Honor series had really not been in a great place since Allied Assault, and this is the first entry since then to actually deliver a consistently engaging experience throughout its entire campaign.
At its core, it plays more or less like an old school Call of Duty (pre-MW2), with a few noticeable differences. For example, the enemies are harder to hit, but they die quicker, and so do you. This incentivizes you to be more careful and stay in cover, which there is a lot of this time. Level design consistently replicates CoD 2 and CoD 4's best missions, allowing you more room to think strategically and apply different methods to the same situations. Running from cover to cover to progress deeper into the enemy positions is essential, and now you have a slide mechanic to make that easier. I honestly don't get why this mechanic hasn't become a trend in military shooters like health regeneration. It makes so much sense and works so well with this type of gameplay. The cover will often be semi-destructible, which adds dynamism to the gameplay. The game in general feels more realistic than any of its predecessors or contemporaries in the genre. And this is also reflected in how weapons handle. Shotguns are now useful not only in point-blank. Grenades have much smaller radius, and thus are no longer the panacea against large groups of enemies. Another new mechanic is the ability to ask your comrades for ammo, which they will only give you if you stick with your default weapon. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this last one. On one hand, the weapons you are given are always better than those of the enemy, which is also realistic. There's never really a good reason to trade your M4 for an AK-47. On the other hand, this means you're not gonna utilize nearly as many weapons as you would in other games in the genre. However, the single best thing about this game in comparison to CoD is that it's much less linear. It has plenty of stealth missions, but the stealth is never forced upon you. I intentionally disobeyed the order every chance I had, and the game never showed the "mission failed" screen. You're always free to go guns-blazing, but that would only make things harder for yourself.
The game shines in small-scale suspenseful shootouts, and, thankfully, most of the game gives you just that. But it feels like either the devs or the publisher were insecure about their vision, because they often try way too hard to copy Call of Duty. And those sections are when the game really sucks. I'm talking about turret sections, forced sniper sections and that one helicopter mission (which is essentially a glorified turret section). They feel even worse than in Call of Duty because this game doesn't seem to be designed for that. Its general approach to gameplay and presentation clashes hard with the linearity of these sections, making them appear rather as boring distractions that just slow the game down to a crawl.
The story in this game is almost non-existent, which I prefer over the dumbass story of the CoD: MW trilogy. Like it's technically there, but it's just a bunch of soldiers getting in situations and rescuing each other. I like how the game doesn't go out of its way to depict Taliban cartoonishly evil. They appear mostly as just soldiers. It also doesn't try to justify American actions in Afghanistan, clearly portraying the upper command as being out of touch with the situation. This game concerns itself with the troops only and their direct experiences. It does, however end with a cringey tearjerker and a patriotic ramble, which leaves a bad aftertaste.
In conclusion, I think EA and Danger Close truly had something special here. If they ditched the CoD-copying and any attempts at the story, this would've been a 4.5. If they also included missions where you play as Taliban, it could've been a masterpiece, but that game would've never come out. They did add the ability to play as Taliban in multiplayer, and all those dumbass Republicans in America started to freak out. They never had any issue with playable Nazis for some reason, and I bet if this was a game about colonization of America they would also be fine with the ability to play as the genocidal colonizers, but no, not the Taliban, that's going way too far.
One last thing I want to mention is the weird appearance of Chechens in the game. I looked it up, and the official information claims there were Chechens and Uzbeks involved in the operation, even though the Chechen presence is still disputed. Yet we never see any Uzbeks or any other nationalities. I feel like, if Chechens were there, you'd have some Dagestanis and Circassians too, not to mention many neighboring nationalities, such as Iranians, Tajiks, Pakistanis, Uyghurs, etc. Granted, Tajiks and Afghans are practically indistinguishable, but why are there more Chechens than Uzbeks? That doesn't make much sense. And it also seems weird to me that the game portrays Chechens as better trained and better equipped than the Afghan mujaheddin. Why? Chechen mujaheddin are just as stateless as the Afghan ones. In fact, Russia has been cracking down on them much harsher than Afghanistan. Where would they get better training and gear? I'm not an expert on this though, so I'm not ready to blame the game for inaccuracy here. Especially considering how it's like 50 times more realistic and authentic than the CoD: MW series.
Danger Close (formerly EA Los Angeles) started off with some of the worst takes on the franchise, but improved with each entry, until they finally put out a good game. The Medal of Honor series had really not been in a great place since Allied Assault, and this is the first entry since then to actually deliver a consistently engaging experience throughout its entire campaign.
At its core, it plays more or less like an old school Call of Duty (pre-MW2), with a few noticeable differences. For example, the enemies are harder to hit, but they die quicker, and so do you. This incentivizes you to be more careful and stay in cover, which there is a lot of this time. Level design consistently replicates CoD 2 and CoD 4's best missions, allowing you more room to think strategically and apply different methods to the same situations. Running from cover to cover to progress deeper into the enemy positions is essential, and now you have a slide mechanic to make that easier. I honestly don't get why this mechanic hasn't become a trend in military shooters like health regeneration. It makes so much sense and works so well with this type of gameplay. The cover will often be semi-destructible, which adds dynamism to the gameplay. The game in general feels more realistic than any of its predecessors or contemporaries in the genre. And this is also reflected in how weapons handle. Shotguns are now useful not only in point-blank. Grenades have much smaller radius, and thus are no longer the panacea against large groups of enemies. Another new mechanic is the ability to ask your comrades for ammo, which they will only give you if you stick with your default weapon. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this last one. On one hand, the weapons you are given are always better than those of the enemy, which is also realistic. There's never really a good reason to trade your M4 for an AK-47. On the other hand, this means you're not gonna utilize nearly as many weapons as you would in other games in the genre. However, the single best thing about this game in comparison to CoD is that it's much less linear. It has plenty of stealth missions, but the stealth is never forced upon you. I intentionally disobeyed the order every chance I had, and the game never showed the "mission failed" screen. You're always free to go guns-blazing, but that would only make things harder for yourself.
The game shines in small-scale suspenseful shootouts, and, thankfully, most of the game gives you just that. But it feels like either the devs or the publisher were insecure about their vision, because they often try way too hard to copy Call of Duty. And those sections are when the game really sucks. I'm talking about turret sections, forced sniper sections and that one helicopter mission (which is essentially a glorified turret section). They feel even worse than in Call of Duty because this game doesn't seem to be designed for that. Its general approach to gameplay and presentation clashes hard with the linearity of these sections, making them appear rather as boring distractions that just slow the game down to a crawl.
The story in this game is almost non-existent, which I prefer over the dumbass story of the CoD: MW trilogy. Like it's technically there, but it's just a bunch of soldiers getting in situations and rescuing each other. I like how the game doesn't go out of its way to depict Taliban cartoonishly evil. They appear mostly as just soldiers. It also doesn't try to justify American actions in Afghanistan, clearly portraying the upper command as being out of touch with the situation. This game concerns itself with the troops only and their direct experiences. It does, however end with a cringey tearjerker and a patriotic ramble, which leaves a bad aftertaste.
In conclusion, I think EA and Danger Close truly had something special here. If they ditched the CoD-copying and any attempts at the story, this would've been a 4.5. If they also included missions where you play as Taliban, it could've been a masterpiece, but that game would've never come out. They did add the ability to play as Taliban in multiplayer, and all those dumbass Republicans in America started to freak out. They never had any issue with playable Nazis for some reason, and I bet if this was a game about colonization of America they would also be fine with the ability to play as the genocidal colonizers, but no, not the Taliban, that's going way too far.
One last thing I want to mention is the weird appearance of Chechens in the game. I looked it up, and the official information claims there were Chechens and Uzbeks involved in the operation, even though the Chechen presence is still disputed. Yet we never see any Uzbeks or any other nationalities. I feel like, if Chechens were there, you'd have some Dagestanis and Circassians too, not to mention many neighboring nationalities, such as Iranians, Tajiks, Pakistanis, Uyghurs, etc. Granted, Tajiks and Afghans are practically indistinguishable, but why are there more Chechens than Uzbeks? That doesn't make much sense. And it also seems weird to me that the game portrays Chechens as better trained and better equipped than the Afghan mujaheddin. Why? Chechen mujaheddin are just as stateless as the Afghan ones. In fact, Russia has been cracking down on them much harsher than Afghanistan. Where would they get better training and gear? I'm not an expert on this though, so I'm not ready to blame the game for inaccuracy here. Especially considering how it's like 50 times more realistic and authentic than the CoD: MW series.
Imperialist propaganda
Bom , mas nada demais
really standard generic FPS game which can be surprising to hear given the reputation of both Medal of Honor & Dice respectively. game has aged in a way to feel like a demo for the engine itself given how vastly different it can prove itself in 6 years with the release of Battlefield 1. It'd have a higher rating if it weren't for the fact the game struggles to keep your interest and the non FPS segments weren't satisfying.
Medal of Honor 2010 had a fairly solid single-player campaign that focused on modern warfare within the Middle East. Gunplay is good and missions have a nice "real" feeling thanks to its presentation and most importantly audio cues and voice acting.
Multiplayer mode was unremarkable and below average. I only put a certain amount of hours back in the day for this multiplayer until I reverted to Battlefield games of that time.
Multiplayer mode was unremarkable and below average. I only put a certain amount of hours back in the day for this multiplayer until I reverted to Battlefield games of that time.
Truly an amreican war movie, the game
every door in this paul greengrass moovie-stenched "prestige" "shooter" locks itself for 5 to 75 minutes to prompt your character into monologuing about hypotheticals---safe ones, Approved Topics, like what if securing the LZ is just another ill-disguised cutscene-cum-recruitment ad instead of what happened to pat tillman anyway. EVERY bend locks your game into a cutscene to sell you on the fantasy of being given a cool name like deuce and losing your limbs in sands unknown. too cowardly to leave the taliban in the mp. yellowbellied gaming
It's so propagandistic, that at the end with the dedication I couldn't but laugh with the part about "(...) military forces who continue to defend freedom around the world", seriously, Electronic Arts, Danger Close, are you aware that this game is also played in I don't know, Latin America, where we are still repairing the damage of your "freedom"? of course not, this is propaganda to recruit young gringos and send them to die in another country with american geo-strategical interest.
joguei isso aqui em 2016 só por que tocava the catalyst do linkin park e mermao nao valeu mt a pena nao queria dizer nada nao
What the fuck is a KILOMETER
- pq nao tem mais estatísticas no final das missões?
- pq a campanha dura 3 míseras horas? (isso n seria problema se o jogo terminasse a história que começou)
- pq nao tem praticamente nada no jogo que lembre que ele é um moh?
tirando isso, confesso que amei cada segundo da experiência, não merece tanto o hate que recebe.
- pq a campanha dura 3 míseras horas? (isso n seria problema se o jogo terminasse a história que começou)
- pq nao tem praticamente nada no jogo que lembre que ele é um moh?
tirando isso, confesso que amei cada segundo da experiência, não merece tanto o hate que recebe.
This has to be the most generic game I've ever played, I can excuse bland shooters if they are fun but man this game is so boring and by the numbers and takes itself soooo seriously, ugh, there's like one decent mission in the game which I thought was not atrocious but the rest of it is so baaaad. This 2010 game looks like a late gen xbox game how tf? And the fact you are stuck at 70 fov and the aiming is way too sensitive just makes the game worse than it already is.
This is my first Medal of Honor experience. In terms of story, I like its plainness and easy-to-follow jumps from character to character and the connectedness of their missions. The objectives and pacing of missions are realistic. The gunplay and shooting are solidified and it can bring quite a challenge despite the difficulty of gauging out how much damage you can take from enemies is uncertain. However, I do not see myself playing this again anytime soon or ever.
Games like this suck I think you get what i mean
call of duty but more boring